skip to main content
10.1145/3159450.3159516acmconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagessigcseConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article
Public Access

Thematic Analysis of Students' Reflections on Pair Programming in CS1

Published: 21 February 2018 Publication History

Abstract

Pair programming is a successful approach for improving student performance, retention, and motivation toward computer science. However, not all students benefit equally from this approach. An open challenge for researchers is to develop a deep understanding of the student experience in pair programming, particularly for novices. This paper reports on a study of the cognitive, affective, and social experiences of students in an introductory programming course in which pair programming was utilized throughout the term. Students reported their experience through reflection essays written at the end of the semester. We analyzed 137 student reflection papers in a mixed-methods study. The quantitative results show that overall, students have a positive attitude toward pair programming. Looking more deeply at the reflection essays, thematic analysis revealed themes centered around cognitive, affective, and social dimensions. In the cognitive dimension, students expressed the importance of exposure to different ideas and developing deeper understanding. Affectively, students reported that working with a partner reduced their frustration and increased their confidence. Students also pointed out the social benefits of forming friendships and helpful connections. These results highlight the powerful benefits of pair programming and point to ways in which this collaborative approach could be adapted to better meet student needs.

References

[1]
G. Braught, T. Wahls, and L. M. Eby. 2011. The Case for Pair Programming in the Computer Science Classroom. ACM Transactions on Computing Education 11, 1: 1--21.
[2]
Virginia Braun and Victoria Clarke. 2006. Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology 3, 2: 77--101.
[3]
Joseph Chao and Gulgunes Atli. 2006. Critical Personality Traits in Successful Pair Programming. In AGILE 2006 (AGILE'06), 89--93.
[4]
Alistair Cockburn and Laurie Williams. 2000. The Costs and Benefits of Pair Programming. Extreme Programming and Flexible Processes in Software Engineering XP2000: 223--247.
[5]
Lynne M. Connelly. 2010. What is phenomenology? MedSurg Nursing 19, 2: 127--129.
[6]
Timothy H. DeClue. 2003. Pair programming and pair trading: effects on learning and motivation in a CS2 course. Journal of Computing Sciences in Colleges 18, 5: 49--56.
[7]
T. Dyba, E. Arisholm, D. Sjöberg, J. E. Hannay, and F. Shull. 2007. Are two heads better than one? On the efectiveness of pair programming. IEEE Software 6: 12--15.
[8]
J. Richard Landis and Gary G. Koch. 1977. The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. biometrics.
[9]
Sarah J. McCarthey and Susan McMahon. 1992. From convention to invention: Three approaches to peer interactions during writing. Interaction in cooperative groups: 17--35
[10]
C. Mcdowell, B. Hanks, and L. Werner. 2003. Experimenting with Pair Programming in the Classroom. In Proceedings of the 8th Annual Conference on Innovation and Technology in Computer Science Education, 60--64.
[11]
C. Mcdowell, L. Werner, H. E. Bullock, and J. Fernald. 2003. The impact of pair programming on student performance, perception and persistence. Proceedings of the 25th International Conference on Software Engineering: 602--607.
[12]
J. L. Schultz, J. R. Wilson, and K. C. Hess. 2010. Team-based classroom pedagogy reframed: The student perspective. American Journal of Business Education.
[13]
J. Sweller, P. Ayres, and S. Kalyuga. 2011. Cognitive load theory.
[14]
Christopher Watson and Frederick W. B. Li. 2014. Failure rates in introductory programming revisited. In Proceedings of the 2014 conference on Innovation & technology in computer science education - ITiCSE '14, 39--44.
[15]
Jon M. Werner and Scott W. Lester. 2001. Applying a team effectiveness framework to the performance of student case teams. Human Resource Development.
[16]
L. L. Werner, B. Hanks, C. McDowell. 2004. Pair-Programming Helps Female Computer Science Students. ACM Journal of Educational Resources in Computing 4, 1.
[17]
Laurie Williams and Richard L. Upchurch. 2001. In Support of Student Pair-Programming. In Proceedings of the thirty-second SIGCSE technical symposium on Computer Science Education, 327--331.
[18]
B. Zhong, Q. Wang, and J. Chen. 2016. The impact of social factors on pair programming in a primary school. Computers in Human Behavior 64: 423--431.

Cited By

View all

Recommendations

Comments

Information & Contributors

Information

Published In

cover image ACM Conferences
SIGCSE '18: Proceedings of the 49th ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education
February 2018
1174 pages
ISBN:9781450351034
DOI:10.1145/3159450
Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than ACM must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected]

Sponsors

Publisher

Association for Computing Machinery

New York, NY, United States

Publication History

Published: 21 February 2018

Permissions

Request permissions for this article.

Check for updates

Author Tags

  1. CS1
  2. computer science education
  3. pair programming

Qualifiers

  • Research-article

Funding Sources

Conference

SIGCSE '18
Sponsor:

Acceptance Rates

SIGCSE '18 Paper Acceptance Rate 161 of 459 submissions, 35%;
Overall Acceptance Rate 1,595 of 4,542 submissions, 35%

Upcoming Conference

SIGCSE TS 2025
The 56th ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education
February 26 - March 1, 2025
Pittsburgh , PA , USA

Contributors

Other Metrics

Bibliometrics & Citations

Bibliometrics

Article Metrics

  • Downloads (Last 12 months)255
  • Downloads (Last 6 weeks)36
Reflects downloads up to 10 Feb 2025

Other Metrics

Citations

Cited By

View all

View Options

View options

PDF

View or Download as a PDF file.

PDF

eReader

View online with eReader.

eReader

Login options

Figures

Tables

Media

Share

Share

Share this Publication link

Share on social media